Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 BOAMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY HELD ON FEBRUARY 2, 1983 A REGULAR SESSION of the Board and Adjustment and Appeals of the City of The Colony, Texas, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Jack Finley Chairman Roosevelt Johnson Vice Chairman Gene Poole Member Michael Leddy Member 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the October 27, 1982, meeting and the November 27, 1982, meeting were presented to the Board for their review. Member Leddy did note that in the October 27th meeting, the second to the last paragraph, it does state that Member Leddy stated that he would reconsider this request at an 18 -foot height rather than 20 feet. Member Leddy stated that he did not make that statement, as later on in the following motion, he did vote against it. That correction was noted. Member Poole noted a typographical error in Agenda Item No. 3, first paragraph, of the minutes of October 27th; rather than "be a truck", it should be "by a truck". That correction was noted. At this time, Member Leddy moved that the minutes presented to them be approved with the above-mentioned amendments. The motion was seconded by Member Poole and passed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION OF MICKEY MALANAPHY WHO RESIDES AT 5304 RICE DRIVE TO SEEK A VARIANCE FROM CITY ORDINANCE NO. 38 TO INSTALL A BACKYARD FENCE THAT EXCEEDS EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION OF JERRY ZAMAZAL WHO RESIDES AT 5513 ADAMS DRIVE TO SEEK A VARIANCE FROM CITY ORDINANCE NO. 38 SECTION 6C TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD DECORATIVE FENCE WITH THE ENCLOSED AREA OF THE FENCE EXCEEDING 500 It was noted that only four members were present at this time and that Member Leddy could not hear the case on Jerry Zamazal, as he does reside within 200 feet of his residence. Vice Chairman Johnson then moved that these hearings be continued to February 9th at 7:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Member Leddy and passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None There being no further action to be taken by the Board at this time, Vice Chairman Johnson moved that the meeting be adjourned. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion was passed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Chairman Finley adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. ATTEST: JANICE CARROLL, CITY SECRETARY JACK FINLEY, CHAIRMAN -1- i i MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT > AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY HELD ON FEBRUARY 9, 1983 A CONTINUANCE of the REGULAR SESSION of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of The Colony, Texas, held on February 2, 1983, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Jack Finley Chairman Roosevelt Johnson Vice Chairman Gene Poole Member John Foreman Member Russ Stoffregen Member 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION OF MICKEY MALANAPHY WHO RESIDES AT 5304 RICE DRIVE TO SEEK A VARIANCE FROM CITY ORDINANCE NO. 38 TO INSTALL A BACKYARD FENCE THAT EXCEEDS EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION OF JERRY ZAMAZAL WHO RESIDES AT 5513 ADAMS DRIVE TO SEEK A VARIANCE FROM CITY ORDINANCE NO. 38 SECTION 6C TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD DECORATIVE FENCE WITH THE ENCLOSED AREA OF THE FENCE EXCEEDING 50% At this time, Vice Chairman Johnson moved that the Hearing be opened. Seconded by Member Foreman, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Chairman Finley read the following request from Mickey Malanaphy of 5304 Rice Drive: Variance form 8 -foot limit on fence requirements. I just had a swimming pool built which required a 4 -foot retaining wall (at its highest point) . A six-foot wood fence on top of the retaining wall will provide privacy and most of all security. Mr. Malanaphy was present and stated that his concerns were safety for children, basic security and privacy for he and his family. Mr. Bradburry advised the Board that he felt like this variance should not be granted, as Mr. Malanaphy was made aware of the ordinance requirements and, upon inspection, he did note that the yard was not sloped that much. He did not feel that privacy was a factor at all. Vice Chairman Johnson asked for a clarification of the reasons. Mr. Malanaphy said that the pool level is high and that when someone is standing up on the pool deck, they could be seen. It was also noted that if the fence was only six feet from the existing grade at some areas it could possibly be less than four feet above the pool level. Member Poole asked why was the pool level raised. Mr. Malanaphy stated that the pool company built up the yard rather than dropping the yard down from the patio area. Mr. Bradburry stated that he felt that the ten feet is immaterial and that the variance should be requested by the landowner prior to construction. He did not feel that the Board had the authority to grant a variance after the fact. Mr. Stoffregen asked if this height constituted a safety hazard. Mr. Bradburry advised that it did not. Member Foreman was concerned that the four -foot minimum required around a pool was maintained. After lengthy discussion, the Board did conclude that a four -foot fence around a pool is possibly inadequate and that perhaps the height of a fence should not be measured from the original ground level. At this time, the Board did hear the request of Mr. Jerry Zamazal. Chairman Finley read the following variance request: Exemption from amendment to City Ordinance No. 38, Section 6C, paragraph 3. I have fence pickets wide 3'-z" and spacing between pcikets is 21". But because fence is ease destructible it is not fire hazard as stated in correspondence with building inspector. -1- Mr. Zamazal did advise the Board that he would gladly get another permit for the front fence, however, at the time he did have a permit for the back fence and did not understand the requirements. At this time, Vice Chairman Johnson read into the minutes the letter from Mr. Bradburry to Mr. Zamazal regarding this problem. Dear Mr. Zamazal: Enclosed you will find a copy of the fence ordinance that pertains to your specific question. As you can see, this ordinance amends a section of Ordinance No. 38 which states the definition of a fence as "A fence is defined as any wall or structure more than twelve (12) inches in height constructed for the purpose of enclosing, screening, restricting acess to ordecorating any lot, building or structure". As stated you did not purchase a permit for this front yard fence, if you had we could have eliminated this problem. The ordinance does not state (as you say)that the enclosed area is less than 500 of total. fence area. Rather it states that the solid area of the fence shall. not exceed fifty percent (500) of the total area of the fence. You are in violation of several of the requirements of our ordinance. 1. No permit for the front yard fence. 2. Fence material. was not approved by this office. 3. Fence does not meet the solid fence area requirement. Your type of fence would not permit the Fire Department to drag their fire hose along the ground, it would hang in your fence. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call. At this time, your front yard fence does not meetany requirement. Sincerely, /s/ I. R. Bradburry, Director, Community Development Mr. Bradburry also explained that a decorative fence must be approved by his office and that it did come to his attention when a neighbor applied for a front yard fence permit. Mr. Zamazal told the Board that the fence is only one-half finished, as he had stopped work on it and that his primary reason was to keep small animals out of his yard. Member Foreman asked if there was any problem with the materials used. Mr. Bradburry stated that no there was not as long as there was adequate space between the pickets. After further discussion, Vice Chairman Johnson moved to close the Public Hearings. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion was passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None The Board then discussed the variance requested by Mr. Malanaphy. Member Foreman stated that he felt like this was another case where the fence ordinance should be reviewed. Chairman Finley stated that as long as the fence was neat and safe, he did agree with Mr. Malanaphy that there could be no privacy with a four -foot fence and that the levelling of the yard for a pool is necessary. Member Stoffregen stated that he was concerned with Mr. Bradburry's position, but he was concerned that the ordinance should be corrected. Vice Chairman Johnson did make it clear that the Board does not like to be put in the position of approving a City violation. At this time, the question was called, and Chairman Finley made the motion to approve the variance to allow Mr. Malanaphy to have a fence exceeding eight feet total when placed on top of a retaining wall. Seconded by Member Foreman, the motion was passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None The Board then considered Mr. Zamazal'sr.equest. Member Poole stated that he did not see any hardship involved in this request. Chairman Finley agreed, as a front yard fence is an option and unnecessary. Member Foreman stated that the fence was built without a permit, the spacing was too close and that the material had not been approved. Based on these factors, he was concerned with granting the variance. Chairman Finley was concerned with safety for the children in the area with a picket fence in the front yard. Based on these points of discussion, Member Poole moved to deny Mr. Zamazal's request -2- i for a continuation of a front yard fence. This motion was seconded by Member Foreman. Vice Chairman Johnson did note that the fence, of course, could be put up when the proper permitting procedure was gone through and the proper spacing was provided and the material was approved by Mr. Bradburry. At this time, Chairman Finley called for a vote upon the motion on the floor. The motion to deny this variance request passed by the following vote: Ayes: Members Stoffregen, Johnson, Finley and Foreman Noes: Member Poole There being no further action to be taken by the Board, Vice Chairman Johnson moved that the meeting be adjourned. Seconded by Chairman Finley, the motion was passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Chairman Finley adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. ATTEST: JANICE CARROLL, CITY SECRETARY t i JACK FINLEY, CHAIRMAN -3- MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY HELD ON MARCH 9, 1983 A REGULAR SESSION of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of The Colony, Texas, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Roosevelt Johnson Vice Chairman Gene Poole Member Russ Stoffregen Member Michael Leddy Member John Foreman Member 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Poole moved to approve the minutes of the meetings held on February 2, 1983, and February 9, 1983, which the Board had reviewed. Seconded by Member Foreman, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING UPON THE REQUEST OF BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE SCREENING WALL TO BE OF A MATERIAL OTHER THAN MASONRY AT THE BROOKSHIRE STORE IN THE COLONY PARK SHOPPING CENTER 3. PUBLIC HEARING UPON THE REQUEST OF R. SCOTT STONE COMPANY FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE SCREENING WALL TO BE OF A MATERIAL OTHER THAN MASONRY AT LEASE A IN THE COLONY PARK SHOPPING CENTER At this time, Member Leddy moved to open the Public Hearing. Seconded by Member Foreman, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Chairman Johnson read the following request from the Brookshire Grocery Company, P. 0. Box 1411, Tyler, Texas: Brookshire's requests a variance from previously required concrete fence and be allowed to conform with previous granting to Wal- Mart and the allowance of a chain link type fence with slat inserts. Attached site plan indicates fenced area marked in red. Mr. Jack Bateman, Director of Real Estate for Brookshire Grocery Company, was present and was recognized at this time. He stated that they were asking for a variance on the fence as originally approved on the site plan from Lincoln Properties, as due to the subsequent subdivision of the property, they had not been priveleged to have any input into this site plan. He stated further that the land at the back of the site is sloped rather sharply and they are, therefore, requesting to be allowed to use cyclone fencing in lieu of the required concrete. He also advised that they are planning to submit a new site plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which will completely eliminate the fence in that part of the shopping center, because the ordinance does not require this type of material where a shopping center does not back up to residential property. He stated that they plan to have a baler inside the store, which will minimize trash concerns. Mr. Bateman also advised that the Building Permit was granted upon plans which did not show a screening fence. At this time, Member Foreman brought up the fact that the site plan was approved showing a screening fence. Mr. Bateman stated again that, due to the fact that they had not been able to have a part in this original site plan, they did plan on submitting a new site plan which, if approved, would eliminate the screening fence entirely. At this time, Mr. I. R. Bradburry, Community Developmet Director, clarified that a screening wall is required -1- r anywhere the Council chooses to designate, as well as behind property which abuts a residential area. Mr. Bradburry at this time also gave a brief history of this shopping center, stating that the original site plan was submitted by Lincoln Properties and included the entire area. After this site plan was approved by the City Council, the subdivision of the property was requested by Wal Mart and the Brookshire Grocery Company. He stated further that all of the plans approved so far, as well as the agreement with all of the tenants had shown a screening wall. Mr. Scott Stone, Leasing Agent for the shopping center, was recognized and stated that the division of this section of the shopping center was made by he and the Brookshire Grocery Company after the Wal Mart site plan was approved. Chairman Johnson asked if Brookshires would have a trash compactor, and Mr. Bateman asnwered that they would not and that wet garbage would be put in a dumpster. Mr. Bateman stated that he was concerned with any extra expense which was not really necessary for the development of the site, and he further advised that all of the Brookshire properties are maintained in an extremely orderly manner with no trash visible behind the stores. At this point, Mr. Stone stated that in a meeting with former City Manager Dan Savage, it was suggested that the screening fence be eliminated because the property did not abut a residential area. Member Leddy asked at this time whether there was a screening fence shown when the original site plan for the entire shopping center was approved. Mr.. Brad - burry replied that there was. Member Leddy then asked what plans were submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council concerning the various sections of the shopping center after the subdivision. Mr. Stone stated that the replat of the property was approved but that the final plat was misplaced. He stated further that in checking he found that prior to January 6, 1983, there had been nothing filed on this property. Mr. Stone also said that the replat of the property did not show a screening wall and was approved by the City Council. At this point, Mr. Bateman advised that this replat had ben signed by Mr. Savage. At this time, Mr. Bradburry clari- fied that the fence would have to be shown on the site plan, not on the replat. Chairman Johnson reminded the Board that the reason for a variance being granted to Wal Mart was the type of soil which was shown to be unsuitable for supporting a masonry wall, and he asked Mr. Bradburry's opinion on erecting a masonry wall behind Brookshires and also how he felt about the material which had been used by Wal Mart. Mr. Bradburry answered that he did not think that concrete would work behind Brookshires because of the type of filling done on the site and, further, he did not like the fence behind Wal Mart. Mr. Bateman stated that in his experience certain types of fencing which may seem fine at the time, do not do well over a period of time. He stated further that cyclone fencing never looks good for very long. Member Stoffregen stated that the understanding with Wal. Mart at the time of their variance was that slats would be put in and kept in good condition and that there would be a concrete edging such as the one used behind the Texas Power and Light facility. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Bradburry if he had looked at the drop off behind Brookshires. Member Leddy at this point said that he had seen it and that it was easily ten feet in some places. Chairman Johnson then asked about the screening of trash behind the store and if there would be room for eight -yard dumpsters. Mr. Bateman answered that there was plenty of room for the dumpsters. Member Foreman asked if there was a safety necessity for the fence. Member Poole did not feel there would be a safety problem and he stated further that the whole idea of screening is to cover the garbage and trash so that it will not be visible to everyone passing by. Member Stoffregen asked what Mr. Bateman would like to use in the way of material for fencing. Mr. Bateman answered that he would use the cyclone fencing, if a fence had to be erected, even though he did not really like the idea of using any fence. Mr. Tom Cravens, of Fox & Jacobs, Inc., was recognized at this time and stated that there were several reasons for a fence: for screening, to keep trash from blowing away, and because this area is very visible from the residential areas. He stated, therefore, that Fox & Jacobs feels there needs to be some kind of fencing. Mr. Cravens stated further that he liked the type of fencing which is behind the Texas Power and Light facility, stating further that he felt it could be put in right so that it would stay. Member Leddy asked Mr. Bradburry why masonry walls were erected behind both the Colony Square Shopping Center and Peters Colony Shopping Center. Mr. Bradburry replied that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which requires the masonry wall, was passed in 1979 and the wall behind the Colony Square Shopping Center was put up prior to this time. In the case of Peters Colony Shopping Center, it does abut a residential area. Mr. Stone asked about the construction of the fence behind Texas Power and Light. Chairman Johnson replied that it has concrete pillars with cyclone fencing in between and a concrete edging at the bottom. Mr. Stone stated -2- i l that this would not work behind the property in question because of the fill dirt. At this point, Chairman Johnson stated for the record that he was only describing the Texas Power and Light fencing because he was asked and that he did not mean for it to be taken as a recommendation. Member Leddy asked about the easement behind the property. Mr. Stone stated that the concrete paving was right on the property line and that the fence would have to be on the easement. Member Leddy then asked if there was any construction reason why the fence had to be built. Mr. Bateman answered that there was not. At this time, Mr. Bradburry stated that the shopping center could be operated on a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for thirty days. Mr. Stone felt that tenants could not be brought in under a temporary CO because of the possible risk, and he advised further that they would be going before the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 22nd and the City Council on April 4th with a new site plan. At this time, Chairman Johnson read the following request from R. Scott Stone, 1312 North Central Expressway, Suite 3, Dallas: Request a variance from the Comprehensive Zoning ordinance to allow the screening wall behind Lease "A" space to be of a material other than masonry material. Chairman Johnson then read for the record the following two letters: February 24, 1983 Board of Adjustment & Appeals City of The Colony Re: Screening Fence behind Griffin Square Shopping Center and Brookshire Grocers Gentlemen: This is to protest the proposed variance in City Ordinance No. 65, and No. 61 by which it is proposed a screening fence of a material other than masonary be installed behind Griffin Square Shopping Center at Farm Market 423 and South Colony Blvd. There are three good reasons for this: First, you granted variance for Walmart and Walmart's fence has blown over once already. This indicates that the fence won't be permanent. Second, you required The Colony Square Shopping Center at Paige Road and South Colony Blvd. to erect a masonary fence behind it and you required Peters Colony Shopping Center also to have a masonary fence erected behind it even though the property behind it is undeveloped land. Therefore to require less than that from other competitive centers is discriminatory and in my opinion should be denied. Third, wood fences frankly look cheap. They begin to look shabby as a board at a time falls off. Therefore I respectfully request that the Board of Adjustment & Appeals deny the request of Griffin Square Shopping Center and Brookshire Grocers to erect a none masonary fence behind their installations. Yours very truly, Harry B. Hunsicker, Partner, Colony Square Joint Venture February 28, 1983 The Board of Adjustment & Appeals c/o City of The Colony Re: Public Hearing Dear Ms. Carroll: Thank you for outlining the contents of the Public Hearing regarding The Colony, Texas. This is to inform you that Wal-Mart has no objection. Thank you. Very truly yours, W. G. Bothwell, Real Estate Manager, Wal-Mart -3- I Member Leddy asked when they were planning to open the shopping center, and Mr. Stone stated that the target date was April 1st for four tenants. Member Leddy then asked if it was possible to come before the City Council before this targeted opening date, and Mr. Bradburry answered that he had spoken to Janice Carroll, City Secretary, and this would only be possible as a Special Session. At this time, Member Poole moved to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Member Foreman, the motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Member Poole then made a motion to grant the variance for, a chain-link type fence with slats for blinders. Member. Foreman seconded this motion. Member Stoffregen then made an amendatory motion to specify that the material used in the fencing withstand a typical wind load for this area. This amendatory motion was seconded by Member Foreman. Chairman Johnson then called for a vote upon the motion as amended, which failed by the following vote: Ayes: Members Stoffregen and Foreman Noes: Members Poole and Leddy Chairman Johnson then called for a vote upon the original motion which passed by the following vote: Ayes: Members Poole, Stoffregen and Foreman, Chairman Johnson Noes: Member Leddy After. voting, Member. Leddy was recognized and stated that he was opposed to the granting of this variance, because the request was too general and the persons making the requests were not well prepared. There being no further business to be conducted by the Board, Member. Foreman moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Member Stoffregen, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. ROOSEVELT JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: JANICE CARROLL, CITY SECRETARY 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY HELD ON APRIL 20, 1983 A REGULAR SESSION of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of The Colony, Texas, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Roosevelt Johnson Vice Chairman Gene Poole Member Michael Leddy Member John Perry Member 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Leddy moved to approve the minutes of the March 9, 1983, meeting as presented. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion was passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING UPON THE REQUEST OF ROOSEVELT JOHNSON, ACTING AS AGENT FOR GRIFFIN MIDDLE SCHOOL FOR A VARIANCE FROM CITY ORDINANCE #178 REGULATING SIGNS TO ALLOW A FREE-STANDING SCHOOL MARQUEE AT A HEIGHT EXCEEDING CITY REQUIREMENTS Member Leddy moved to open the Hearing. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Vice Chairman Johnson introduced Sherry Cauthern, as a represen- tative of the Griffin School Parent Teacher Association. Ms. Cauthern advised the board that the PTA does have the financing for the marquee and that the marquee is needed as an activity sign for Griffin Middle School. The reason that they are requesting the variance for an 18 -foot sign is to protect it from vandalism. Member Leddy sai.d that he had checked other school signs at Lakeland, Delay and the Lewisville High School, and he did note that their signs are respectively 102 feet, 11 feet and 9 feet in height. He also had checked with the principal at Delay Middle School, who advised them there had been no history of vandalism. He also added that the high school advised him that one rock had been thrown i.n the past 18 months. Based on this, he did not see any safety reasons for an additional three feet. Mr. Bradburry, Director of Community Development, also advised the board that if it was free standing, it should be a monument -type sign, however, the sign is an attractive one and does meet the City Code i.n all other respects. After discussion, it was decided that they would contact Fox and Jacobs for bricking material to enclose the pole sign to create a monument -type sign, and they did agree that the five-foot sign should be on a ten -foot pole. At this time, Member Leddy moved to close the Hearing. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None After further discussion, Member Leddy moved that this be continued to a later date, April 27th at 7:30 p.m., for a decision by the board. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None -1- M Y f 3. PUBLIC HEARING UPON THE REQUEST OF ROBERT E. GREENE, 5713 PEARCE, TO BUILD A GARAGE LESS THAN TWENTY FEET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE ALLEYWAY WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY ZONING REGULATIONS At this time, Vice Chairman Johnson read aloud the request as submitted by Mr. Greene, "To have a garage built on rear corner of lot. Garage would have parking slab entrance not off alley. House does not have garage at present time. Garage will be Fox & Jacobs pre -fab. Color same as home." Mr. Bradburry advised the board that the zoning ordinance does require that a garage or carport entered from the alley must be twenty feet from the property line. He advised them that in several instances they have granted variances for carports seven and one-half feet from the property line, however, this is their first request relating to a garage. Mr. Greene advised the board that the garage would be built off the presently poured concrete parking slab, and he did explain that the fencing would be three feet from the actual garage. The board did determine that the actual distance from the garage to the hosue was approximately 25-30 feet, and the distance from the side to the alleyway was five and one-half feet. There followed lengthy discussion of the location of the garage and the overhang of the garage into the alleyway. The board was concerned that the garage should sit farther into the yard. After further discussion, Member Leddy moved to close the Hearing. Seconded by Member Perry, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Member Leddy then moved to continue the discussion of this request to April 27, 1983, at 7:30 p.m.. Seconded by Member Perry, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Vice Chairman Johnson suggested that the Members visit the site and that the Members not present be advised to do this also. 4. PUBLIC HEARING UPON THE REQUEST OF B. JACK WATKINS, 5113 PEMBERTON LANE, TO INSTALL A CARPORT LESS THAN TWENTY FEET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE ALLEYWAY WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY ZONING REGULATIONS Member Perry moved to open the Public Hearing. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Vice Chairman Johnson stated that this variance was to install a carport and storage building per the plans attached and that the driveway would also be widened. Mr. Bradburry advised the board that in the past they have granted this type of variance. This variance does allow a carport to be built within twenty feet from the alleyway. He also stated he did see no problem with this request. Mr. Watkins presented his drawing to the board and advised that the overhang would be nine feet from the intersection of his drive with the alleyway. After review of the plans and further discussion, Member Poole moved to close the Hearing. Seconded by Member Perry, the motion passed by the following, vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None -2- n u At this time, Member Leddy moved that the variance requested by Mr. Watkins at 5113 Pemberton to allow a carport closer than twenty feet to the intersection with the alleyway be approved. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion was passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None At this time, there being no further action to be taken, Member Perry moved to continue the meeting to April 27th at 7:30 p.m. Seconded by Member Leddy, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None CONTINUANCE APRIL 27, 1983 Vice Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. on April 27, 1983, with the following members present: Roosevelt Johnson Vice Chairman Gene Poole Member John Foreman Member John Perry Member Michael Leddy Member 2. PUBLIC HEARING UPON THE REQUEST OF ROOSEVELT JOHNSON, ACTING AS AGENT FOR GRIFFIN MIDDLE SCHOOL FOR A VARIANCE FROM CITY ORDINANCE #178 REGULATING SIGNS TO ALLOW A FREE-STANDING SCHOOL MARQUEE AT A HEIGHT EXCEEDING CITY REQUIREMENTS Mr. Bradburry advised the board that Fox and Jacobs has agreed to donate the brick to use in the construction of a monument - type sign. Ms. Cauthern presented to the board a modified variance requesting that the height of the sign be changed to fifteen feet with the pole being ten feet and the sign five feet and that they did agree that it be bricked in coordination with the Sign Ordinance. Based on this modification of the request, Member Leddy moved to grant this variance. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None 3. PUBLIC HEARING UPON THE REQUEST OF ROBERT E. GREENE, 5713 PEARCE, TO BUILD A GARAGE LESS THAN TWENTY FEET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE ALLEYWAY WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY ZONING REGULATIONS Mr. Bradburry advised the board that he had visited the property site again and that the garage would be six feet off the actual alleyway and that this does meet all Code requirements. There followed lengthy review of Mr. Greene's request primarily for Member Foreman, who was not in attendance at the Public Hearing. Again, Mr. Greene emphasized that the garage would be built from Fox and Jacobs pre -fab material that would look exactly like his present home. It was also noted that this garage would be the only rear -entry on the entire alleyway. Member Leddy expressed concern that the building would be too close to the alleyway and that perhaps the storage building should be moved. Mr. Bradburry advised that the storage building was within Code regulations and was three feet off the property line. At this time, Vice Chairman Johnson read into the minutes the following letter: April 19, 1982 Board of Adjustment & Appeals City of The Colony 5576 N. Colony Blvd. The Colony, TX 75056 -3- Reg: Robert E. Greene; 5713 Pearce We own the property adjacent to the property of Mr. Greene. We have no opposition to his building a garage in accordance to his plan. We feel that Mr. Greene's garage will not hinder this neigh- borhood in any manner. We hope the board rules in Mr. Greene's favor concerning this matter. /s/ Mr. & Mrs. David Schwartz 5717 Pearce St. The Colony, TX 75056 After further discussion, Vice Chairman Johnson recessed the meeting so that the board could view the property. Upon recon- vening the meeting, Member Perry moved to grant the variance to Robert E. Greene at 5713 Pearce to place a garage closer than twenty feet from the drive's intersection with the alleyway. Seconded by Member Foreman, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None There being no further action to be taken by the board, Member Perry moved that the meeting be adjourned. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Vice Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. ROOSEVELT JOHNSON, VICE CHAIRMAN ATTEST: JANICE CARROLL, CITY SECRETARY L] r i MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY HELD ON OCTOBER 12, 1983 A REGULAR SESSION of the Board of Adjustment & Appeals of the City of The Colony, Texas, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Roosevelt Johnson Chairman Michael Leddy Member Eric Stanton Member Gene Poole Member Russ Stoffregen Member thus, a quorum was established. 1. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A FENCE VARIANCE REQUESTED BY MR. DOUG GRESSETT, WHO RESIDES AT 5405 MERRELL LANE, TO ERECT A FENCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS, WHICH ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CODE SECTION 6-75: A. INSTALLATION OF A 6 -FOOT WOODEN FENCE APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE LINE B. SAID FENCE TO EXCEED 3 -FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR A FRONT YARD FENCE Member Leddy moved that the Public Hearing be opened. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Chairman Johnson recognized Mr. Gressett, who advised that the fence would actually be only six feet in front of the house line, rather than ten feet, as he had put on his original request. Member Poole then asked Mr. Gressett to clarify some of the symbols on his plans; and Mr. Gressett answered that he had indicated planned _landscaping. Member Poole then asked Mr. Gressett to explain why, in his opinion, the fence could not be dropped back to the house line, and Mr. Gressett stated that he was planning to install a swimming pool in the future and he wished to leave enough room for the pool, as well as enough yard for his children and a dog. Member Poole then asked if there would be any actual. hardship if the fence were moved back to the house line, and Mr. Gressett stated that a sprinkler system had already been installed with some of the heads where the fence would have to be put. Chairman Johnson then recognized Mrs. Kathie Gressett, who also resides at 5405 Merrell Lane, and she stated that some of their yard space will be lost due to a fi.ve-foot easement at the back of the property. Chairman Johnson then recognized Mrs. Lupe Sanditen, who resides at 5404 Cockrell Circle, who stated that she would be against the granting of this variance, as it might set a precedent in the neighborhood. She also felt that fencing in front of a house was unsightly and blocked the view of others. Chairman Johnson did clarify at this point that a decision of this board would not set a precedent, as each case is considered separately on its own merits. Mrs. Sanditen then stated further that she did not like wooden fencing, as she felt that it is often not cared for properly. Member Leddy then asked Mr. Gressett if, aside from the sprinkler system, there was any other point to be made regarding why it would be a hardship to move this fence back to the house line. Mr. Gressett answered that no there was not any other reason. Chairman Johnson then asked if Mr. I. R. Bradburry, Superintendent of the Inspections Department, had any information to relay for the city, and he answered that he did not. Member Leddy then moved that the Public Hearing be closed. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None -1- Member Stanton stated that he could see no actual hardship in this case, as such hardship is set out in the State guidelines. Member Poole agreed, adding that there would still be plenty of space left for a swimming pool. Member Leddy then stated that he would always be opposed to any fencing in front of a house line, and Member Stoffregen agreed with this opinion. Member Leddy then moved to grant the variance. There was no second to this motion. Member Stanton then moved to deny this request. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None There being no further business to be conducted by the board, Member Stanton moved that the meeting be adjourned. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. ATTEST: JANICE CARROLL, CITY SECRETARY ROOSEVELT JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN -2- MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY HELD ON NOVEMBER 9, 1983 A REGULAR SESSION of the Board of Adjustment & Appeals of the City of The Colony, Texas, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Roosevelt Johnson Chairman Gene Poole Member Donald Haines Member Michael Leddy Member and with Member Eric Stanton absent due to illness and with Member Stoffregen unable to attend due to business; however, a quorum was established. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Poole moved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on October 12, 1983, as presented. Seconded by Member Haines, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM MR. LEE WEATHERLY WHO RESIDES AT 4933 NORTH COLONY BLVD. TO CON- STRUCT A CARPORT AT THE REAR OF HIS RESIDENCE TO WITHIN 14 FEET OF THE ALLEYWAY, WHICH IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CODE SECTION 11-702(3)(b) WHICH REQUIRES THAT A CARPORT HAVE A SETBACK OF AT LEAST 20 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE DRIVE AND ALLEYWAY Member Leddy moved to open this Public Hearing. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Chairman Johnson recognized Mr. Lee Weatherly to explain, in his words, this variance request. Mr. Weatherley stated that this house at the corner of North Colony Boulevard and Blair Oaks Road had been used as a model by Fox & Jacobs and, therefore, the garage had been enclosed for use as a sales office. In order to again use this space for a garage, it would be necessary, he stated, to tear down this perfectly good construction already in place. Member Poole then asked Mr. Weatherly to give his definition of a carport. Mr. Weatherly replied "protection for a car from the weather". Member Poole then stated that the definition of a carport would be "a structure extruding from the present struc- ture with a cover with no siding". Member Poole then stated that Mr. Weatherly's request was for a garage without a door, and he also questioned the plywood siding. Mr. Weatherly answered that this would be simply a wind barrier on one side of this area with air space at the top and bottom. Member Leddy then asked if there was any other reason for wanting this one plywood screen. Mr. Weatherly answered that as a protection from the weather was the only reason. Mr. Weatherly also stated that in his opinion this plywood screening would be more attractive than having the cars out in the open. At this point Member Leddy moved to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Member Haines, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None -1- Chairman Johnson and Member Haines both stated that they did not feel that this plywood sheet constituted a wall. Member Leddy stated that he thought the meeting should be tabled until next week, so that there could be a full five -member board, due to the controversy. Member Leddy then moved to continue this meeting on Wednesday, November 16, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. This motion was seconded by Member Poole, and passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None November 16, 1983 A continuation of the meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals from November 9, 1983, was called to order at 8:00 p.m. with the following members present: Member Eric Stanton Member Gene Poole Member Michael Leddy Member Donald Haines Alternative Member John Perry Chairman Roosevelt Johnson and Member Stroffregen were unable to attend; however, a quorum was established. Member Poole made a motion to open the meeting. Seconded by Member Haines, the motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None * Member Poole, explained to Member Stanton and Member Perry what had taken place in discussion so far since they were not at the meeting held the previous week. lWr Leddy then asked Mr. Bradburry if he had a chance to measure the area involved. Mr. Bradburry stated he had measured it this date and it was decided that the brick issue that some were concerned with did not apply. The question the previous week had been about a sided extension to the house. Member Stanton asked if the city had a definition of a carport, Mr. Bradburry stated it does not. Mee Leddy stated he still had a problem with the siding Mr. Weatherly wants to place on the carport. At this time, Member Stanton made a motion to grant the variance for a carport to be 14' from the alley, seconded by Member Haines. The motion was then amended by MepLeddy to prohibit the exterior screening from starting less than one foot above the ground and endinq one foot below ceiling height. Seconded by Member Poole, the motion was passed by the following vote: Ayes: All members present voted aye Noes: None Acting Chairman Leddy adjourned the ATTEST: Janice Carroll, City Secretary 4/26/84 * May the record state the Acting Chairman that at this meeting, Member Leddy was not Member Poole. Jan Gadd, City Secretary